BHAVIN SON OF RAMPRATAP SHARMA vs CHANDUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL Advocate - H A SOLANKI — 24/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 43. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th March 2026.
MCA - MISC. CIVIL APPEAL (APPEAL FROM ORDER)
CNR: GJAH010049652023
Filing Number
24/2023
Filing Date
23-Jun-2023
Registration No
24/2023
Registration Date
23-Jun-2023
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
4-9th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 15-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHAVIN SON OF RAMPRATAP SHARMA
Adv. R A BAROT
-
2.PRAVEEN SON OF RAMPRATAP SHARMA THROUGH POA HOLDER BHAVIN RAMPRATAP SHARMA
-
3.BHANUBEN DAUGHTER OF RAMPRATAP SHARMA THROUGH POA HOLDER BHAVIN RAMPRATAP SHARMA
-
4.TEENA DAUGHTER OF RAMPRATAP SHARMA THROUGH POA HOLDER BHAVIN RAMPRATAP SHARMA
Respondent(s)
-
1.CHANDUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL Advocate - H A SOLANKI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The 9th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dismissed the appellants' appeal and confirmed the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case because the agreement to sell agricultural land to non-agriculturists violated Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, making the agreement void without proper collector's permission. The court found no illegality in the trial court's reasoned order and determined that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the three essential conditions required for temporary injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
9th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Judgement
9th Addl District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
06-Dec-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
18-Oct-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
22-Jul-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
23-Jun-2025
Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
13-Jun-2025
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Apr-2025
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
14-Feb-2025
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
27-Dec-2024
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Oct-2024
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
21-Aug-2024
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Jul-2024
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
20-Jun-2024
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Apr-2024
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
14-Mar-2024
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
04-Jan-2024
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
15-Dec-2023
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
26-Sep-2023
Written Statement/Reply
6th Addl District Judge
-
24-Aug-2023
Written Statement/Reply
6th Addl District Judge
-
21-Jul-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Jun-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 24/2023
Court Decision Summary The 9th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dismissed the appellants' appeal and confirmed the trial court's rejection of their temporary injunction application. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima-facie case because the agreement to sell agricultural land to non-agriculturists violated Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, making the agreement void without proper collector's permission. The court found no illegality in the trial court's reasoned order and determined that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the three essential conditions required for temporary injunction relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts